The petitioners have preferred the present petition against order dated 27.03.2010 whereby the learned trial Court has granted part of the interim relief prayed for by the petitioners-plaintiffs by way of Notice of Motion.
The petitioners-plaintiffs, by virtue of Notice of Motion (Exh.6) prayed for below mentioned interim relief:
that the defendants No.1 to 8 should not convey or encumber upon the suit property.
that the defendants No.1 to 8 should not obstruct them from doing Pooja Archna in the suit property.
After hearing the petitioners-plaintiffs learned trial Court had, at the first instance, issued notice by order dated 05.11.2007, which was made returnable on 26.11.2007. On the returnable date, the defendants did not enter appearance, therefore, considering the averments of the petitioners-plaintiffs, the learned trial Court granted the first part of the interim relief prayed for by the petitioners-plaintiffs. However, declined the second/later part of the interim relief prayed for by the petitioners-plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said denial/rejection, the petitioners are before this Court.
Heard Mr.Chauhan for the petitioners-plaintiffs and perused the record of the case.
Mr.Chauhan has, inter alia, submitted that as of today, and more particularly in light of the fact that part of the interim relief has been granted, the petitioner is not requesting for the possession of the suit premises or for any other relief, except the permission to conduct puja on the 'samadihi' at the suit premises. He emphasised and reemphasised the fact that the petitioners-plaintiffs are the owners of the suit premises and there is no dispute about the said fact, which is noted by the learned trial Court in the impugned order as well. On the strength of the said position, he submitted that when the petitioners-plaintiffs are the owners of the suit premises, there is no justification of not permitting the petitioners or their agents to conduct puja.
On the face of it the request made by the petitioners-plaintiffs is very innocuous. If one scratches the surface of the relief now prayed for by the petitioners-plaintiffs it becomes apparent that the petitioners-plaintiffs actually intend to get entry in the suit premises in the guise of performing puja. It deserves to be noted that the learned trial Court has, in the impugned order, categorically noted that the defendants are in possession of the suit premises. Blissfully the petitioners-plaintiffs do not, at this stage of proceedings and without prejudice to the evidence which may be brought on record subsequently, dispute the position regarding possession of the premises and do not dispute, at this stage, the said position of fact as of now. In such circumstances, i.e. when the petitioners-plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit premises as of now, to permit the petitioners-plaintiffs to perform puja would amount to permitting the petitioners-plaintiffs entry in the suit premises, which is in possession of the defendants. Hence, the relief prayed for by the petitioners-plaintiffs cannot be granted. Any cause for interference in the order, which is challenged in the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution ofIndia is not made out. The petition fails and deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected.
Mr.Chauhan, learned advocate, at this stage, has requested that in the facts of the case the learned trial Court may be asked to expedite the suit proceedings. In view of the fact that part of the interim relief has not been granted, it would be open to the petitioners-plaintiffs to request the learned trial Court to expedite the hearing and decision of the suit, particularly in view of the fact that the defendants have not entered appearance. If and when such request is made the learned trial Court would consider the said request taking into account its own roster as well as the aforesaid position.
With the aforesaid clarification, the petition is rejected.
Sd/-
[K.M.THAKER, J] Bhavesh* Top